BIG PINEY, Wyo. -- A Wyoming teenager has enlisted the help of the American Civil Liberties Union in fighting a same-sex date ban at her high school.

Is this ban a violation of students' constitutional rights to freedom of expression and equal treatment?

The decision handed down in Frick v. Lynch found that students who bring same-sex dates to school dances are not only protected by the Constitution but that schools must take steps to ensure their safety when they attend the dances.

My view: the school administration has the right to make whatever rules it chooses.

CNN had a bit more to the story, adding that the ACLU cited a 1980 federal court ruling from Rhode Island:
While I'd like to see the school policy supposedly barring same-sex dates to school dances, the information available so far leads me to believe that both the girls and the ACLU have a case. As a public school financed by tax payers via the government the school has no right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. While the girls in question may have been decidedly heterosexual, the references to the rule in question suggest that the school has a policy exclusively prohibiting homosexuals.

Is there evidence that these girls had been harassed beyond the average high school antics or a history of gay bashing in the school?  What would give the administration concern that their safety was being jeapordized?

The court ruling required special measures to ensure the protection of such couples.

The present case is so difficult because the Court is keenly sensitive to the testimony regarding the concerns of a possible disturbance, and of physical harm to Aaron or Paul. However, I am convinced that meaningful security measures are possible, and the first amendment requires that such steps be taken to protect rather than to stifle free expression. [**19] Some may feel that Aaron's attendance at the reception and the message he will thereby convey is trivial compared to other social debates, but to engage in this kind of a weighing in process is to make the content-based evaluation forbidden by the first amendment.

As to the other concern raised by Tinker, some people might say that Aaron Fricke's conduct would infringe the rights of the other students, and is thus unprotected by Tinker. This view is misguided, however. Aaron's conduct is quiet and peaceful; it demands no response from others and in a crowd of some five hundred people can be easily ignored. Any disturbance that might interfere with the rights of others would be caused by those students who resort to violence, not by Aaron and his companion, who do not want a fight.

A Sadie Hawkins event scheduled for Friday night was called off after school officials said there could be no dances in the district, according to Blair.

However, I am convinced that meaningful security measures are possible, and the first amendment requires that such steps be taken to protect rather than to stifle free expression

Oh good, she succeeded in getting ALL dances cancelled. Nice work. The rules requiring extra protection for same sex couples is simply too burdensome. So they banned them. When someone challenged the ban, all dances were cancelled.

Two days of testimony [**2] have revealed the following facts. The senior reception at Cumberland High School is a formal dinner-dance [*383] sponsored and run by the senior class. It is held shortly before graduation but is not a part of the graduation ceremonies. This year the students have decided to hold the dance at the Pleasant Valley Country Club in Sutton, Massachusetts on Friday, May 30. All seniors except those on suspension are eligible to attend the dance; no one is required to go. All students who attend must bring an escort, although their dates need not be seniors or even Cumberland High School students. Each student is asked the name of his date at the time he buys the tickets.

The principal testified that school dances are chaperoned by him, two assistant principals, and one or two class advisers. They are sometimes joined by other teachers who volunteer to help chaperone; such teachers are not paid. Often these teachers will drop in for part of the dance. Additionally, police officers are on duty at the dance. Usually two officers attend; last year three plainclothes officers were at the junior prom.

The seeds of the present conflict were planted a year ago when Paul Guilbert, [**3] then a junior at Cumberland High School, sought permission to bring a male escort to the junior prom. The principal, Richard Lynch (the defendant here), denied the request, fearing that student reaction could lead to a disruption at the dance and possibly to physical harm to Guilbert. The request and its denial were widely publicized and led to widespread community and student reaction adverse to Paul. Some students taunted and spit at him, and once someone slapped him; in response, principal Lynch arranged an escort system, in which Lynch or an assistant principal accompanied Paul as he went from one class to the next. No other incidents or violence occurred. Paul did not attend the prom. At that time Aaron Fricke (plaintiff here) was a friend of Paul's and supported his position regarding the dance.

This year, during or after an assembly in April in which senior class events were discussed, Aaron Fricke, a senior at Cumberland High School, decided that he wanted to attend the senior reception with a male companion. Aaron considers himself a homosexual, and has never dated girls, although he does socialize with female friends. He has never taken a girl to a school dance. [**4] Until this April, he had not "come out of the closet" by publicly acknowledging his sexual orientation.

Aaron asked principal Lynch for permission to bring a male escort, which Lynch denied. A week later (during vacation), Aaron asked Paul Guilbert who now lives in New York to be his escort (if allowed), and Paul accepted. Aaron met again with Lynch, at which time they discussed Aaron's commitment to homosexuality; Aaron indicated that although it was possible he might someday be bisexual, at the present he is exclusively homosexual and could not conscientiously date girls. Lynch gave Aaron written reasons for his action; n2 his [*384] prime concern was the fear that a disruption would occur and Aaron or, especially, Paul would be hurt. He indicated in court that he would allow Aaron to bring a male escort if there were no threat of violence.

Since the dance is being held out of state and this is a function of the students of Cumberland High School, the School Department is powerless to insure protection in Sutton, Massachusetts. That protection would be required of property as well as persons and would expose all concerned to liability for harm which might occur;

All seniors except those on suspension are eligible to attend the dance; no one is required to go. All students who attend must bring an escort, although their dates need not be seniors or even Cumberland High School students. Each student is asked the name of his date at the time he buys the tickets.

The principal originally banned this because he had to provide protection for the boy not at the dance, but for the rest of the school year in school. Here comes another boy who then invites the guy from the first case (who is out of state at the time) to the dance. The principal is clearly trying to protect this boy, not only at the dance, but at school as well.

Maybe I'm fuzzy on my logic, but the victim of abuse isn't usually held to blame for the aggressive actions of others against them. Nor should they expect to be punished for them. Hostile actions taken by those opposed to equal treatment is not the fault of those targeted.

The principal, Richard Lynch (the defendant here), denied the request, fearing that student reaction could lead to a disruption at the dance and possibly to physical harm to Guilbert. The request and its denial were widely publicized and led to widespread community and student reaction adverse to Paul. Some students taunted and spit at him, and once someone slapped him; in response, principal Lynch arranged an escort system, in which Lynch or an assistant principal accompanied Paul as he went from one class to the next. No other incidents or violence occurred.

Everyone is responsible for their actions, that includes both outspoken advocates and opponents of said activists. It is not the government's role to physically protect certain individuals because of their chosen behavior. It IS the government's role to enforce the law and crack down on law breakers (such as those who would assault someone else, in this case).

The principal's reasoning in the original case was that he was trying to protect the student from abuse by other students (via the ban). My reasoning here is that this is probably a similar situation, with the principal actually trying to protect certain students from the reactions of other students.

This case can also be profitably analyzed under the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment. In preventing Aaron Fricke from attending the senior reception, the school has afforded disparate treatment to a certain class of students those wishing to attend the reception with companions of the same sex. Ordinarily, a government classification need only bear a rational relationship to a legitimate public purpose; only where the classification encompasses a suspect class or burdens a fundamental right is the government held to a stricter standard of justification. Counsel have conceded that homosexuals are not a suspect class sufficient to trigger a higher standard of scrutiny. As noted above, however, there is a significant first amendment component to Aaron's desire to attend the reception with another male. Where, as here, government classification impinges on a first amendment right, the government is held to a higher level of scrutiny.

The solution to this is pretty obvious to me. A school cannot be expected to expend extra limited resources and incur extra liability in order to ensure protection for two people at an extracurricular function. The school is not required by law to hold a dance.